HKSAR v. YANG LEYING

HCCC 215/2023

[2025] HKCFI 3762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 215 OF 2023

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

BACKGROUND

1.  Defendant was arrested on 6 December 2021 and she was charged with one count of murder.  At the committal stage, she offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, which plea was not accepted by the prosecution at that time.  Defendant was therefore committed to the CFI court for trial.  However, before the case management hearing takes place and pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement reached on 21 October 2024, the parties informed the court that the prosecution would now accept Defendant’s plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility in full satisfaction of the count of murder on the indictment.

2.  On 17 June 2025, when Defendant appeared before me, she pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility and accepted the Summary of Facts. I therefore convicted Defendant accordingly, that is, convicted her of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.  The sentence was adjourned for the purpose of obtaining the most updated psychiatric reports of Defendant from 2 registered medical practitioners to consider whether I should make a hospital order under s.45 of Mental Health Ordinance (Cap.136).

FACTS

3.  The Summary of Facts accepted by Defendant described in horrific details how the deceased, a 24 years old female, who is the daughter of Defendant, escaped from her mother who was holding a knife in her flat and walked out to the neighbouring flats along the corridor at around 3 a.m. on 6 December 2021, shouting and crying for help desperately.  One of the neighbours, Madam Chan (resident of Flat 909 of Ching Wo House, Tsz Ching House, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon), saw this but she was too afraid to intervene.  She just closed the door and called 999 immediately.  When the ambulance men later responded to the report and attended the scene, it was already too late.  They saw Defendant, who was wearing a pair of blood-stained trousers, sitting on the Deceased who was naked and lying face-up in the corridor.  When Defendant was asked what had happened, she turned around and told the ambulance men, “she must die today!”.  Defendant was also seen holding a knife handle with both her hands, and the whole of the blade of the knife was stabbed into the abdomen of the Deceased.  The ambulance men had to retreat and the police arrived soon afterward.  The police pulled Defendant away so that the ambulance men could attend to the Deceased.  The Deceased was then rushed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (“QEH”) and she was all along in coma throughout the journey but she was still breathing and had pulse.

4.  As the police were controlling Defendant, she was speaking incoherently and was very emotional.  She was saying that her colleague and her daughter “got together”. The police arrested Defendant for “wounding” and under caution, she said, “she wanted to harm my son, someone cheated all of my money.”

5.  The police later conducted investigations at the scene and they found bloodstains everywhere inside Defendant’s flat and there were bloodstains on the wall of the communal corridor and there was a large pool of blood outside the entrance of Flat 909.

6.  Upon arrival at AED of QEH, the Deceased was unconscious, unresponsive and with sluggish pupils. The Deceased was immediately transferred to the operating room to address the stab wound.  All resuscitative measures, however, were proven not fruitful and the Deceased was certified dead at 2:50 a.m. on 7 December 2021.

7.  Autopsy was performed on 10 December 2021. The direct cause of death was due to stab wound to the abdomen.It was also remarked that the Deceased had suffered from (1) wounds on the back of her forearms and hands and (2) wounds on her palms and palmar surfaces of fingers, which could be compatible with the defensive injuries caused to the Deceased when she tried to ward off or grab the weapon.

Psychiatric Evidence at the time of plea

8.  Defendant was first known to mental health services since around 2007-2008.  She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was put on antipsychotics for her symptoms. Different social workers who attended to Defendant were also able to confirm that she had been suffering from mental illness and disputes had ensued between Defendant and the Deceased prior to the offence.

9.  Defendant was diagnosed clinically to be suffering from schizophrenia when she was admitted to AED of QEH on 6 December 2021. She was assessed by psychiatrists on 7 and 15 December 2021 and the psychiatric diagnoses were schizophrenia.

10.  Psychiatrist Dr. Y.H. Wong examined Defendant on 28 September 2023 for 3 hours and prepared a psychiatric report dated 12 December 2023.  Dr. Wong opined that Defendant was having an acute episode of schizophrenia at the time of the offence she was suffering from an abnormality of the mind at the time of offence, which was attributed to schizophrenia.

11.  Dr. S.H. Lui, Visiting Psychiatrist of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, examined Defendant on 12 occasions between 20 December 2021 and 24 September 2024. Dr. Lui prepared a report dated 24 September 2024, in which he opined, inter alia, that Defendant was suffering from longstanding schizophrenia, marked by auditory hallucinations and myriad delusions including delusional perception.  At the time of the offence, Defendant was in the state of psychosis from relapsed schizophrenia and the abnormality of her mind was so severe that it substantially impaired her mental responsibility for the crime.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  Defendant is now aged 50 and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  According to the updated psychiatric report prepared by Dr. K.Y. Yip Kimberly, Visiting Psychiatrist of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre dated 8 August 2025, Defendant was born and raised in the Mainland and was educated up to senior high school level in the mainland. Prior to this offence, she worked as a security guard.  Defendant started work at 17, as a kindergarten teacher for a year. She was pregnant with her daughter (the Deceased) with her boyfriend and gave birth to her daughter in 1997.  She then worked as a factory worker for 2-3 years and later at a Karaoke club.  She broke up with her daughter’s father after meeting her husband who was a married Hong Kong citizen.  She became pregnant with their son and the couple married subsequently.  Defendant became a housewife after the son was born and she stayed in the mainland with her two children, while her husband stayed in Hong Kong. Her husband supported her financially.  Her son came to Hong Kong first at the age of 5 and lived with her husband.  In 2005, Defendant came to Hong Kong under the application of her husband.  Her daughter later came to Hong Kong in 2014 under Defendant‘s application. 

13.  Defendant is divorced after coming to Hong Kong due to her husband’s extra martial affair. Since then, Defendant relied on social allowance and the financial support of her ex-husband who later passed away in 2021.  Defendant started working as a security guard since around 2018 to earn more money.  She later had a sexual relationship with her supervisor, Mr. Li, a few months after she started working. She reported Mr. Li would pay her and their relationship lasted for around two years.  She ended the relationship, as she believed Mr. Li had sex with her daughter.   

14.  In mitigation, Mr. Raffell, counsel for Defendant, put before me a letter written by herself which indicates remorse and asks for a chance for rehabilitation and a new life.  Defendant also says that she has now developed a habit of having regular check-ups and medications.  She feels a significant improvement in her mental health and her condition has stabilized.  She expresses her grief and guilt about her daughter and said she would remain heartbroken for the rest of her life.

15.  Mr. Raffell also put before me a letter from Ms. Tang, the Ministry and Hostel Officer of Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Ltd who works in correctional institutions and has been paying regular visits to Defendant since December 2022.  Ms. Tang says that Defendant had been showing great improvement and the association will continue following up on her case, including providing half-way accommodation if needed.

16.  Also submitted is a letter from Ms. Ho Pui Yan, a fellow prisoner who knows Defendant in prison since early 2022.  She talks about how regretful Defendant is whenever she thinks of her daughter. She believes Defendant has learned a bitter lesson in the present case and Defendant is tackling her mental problem by taking her medication on time and receiving her treatment positively.  

17.  Finally, there is another support letter from Ms. Ho Pui Fun, a friend who has known Defendant for 10 odd years.  In her opinion, Defendant is a caring mother who is simple and straightforward and is not evil in character.

18.  In mitigation, Mr. Raffell submits that imprisonment with psychiatric treatment would be an appropriate sentence.  He refers to the two earlier psychiatric reports by Dr. Wong and Dr. Hui before the plea and submits that none of the psychiatrists has suggested that Defendant now poses a threat to the safety of members of the public or other members of her family.  It is submitted that Defendant has been receiving appropriate and sufficient medical attention and treatment in her current prison. She is making steady and real progress and there has been no relapse since she has been in custody.  The making of a hospital order would not be appropriate or necessary.  As Defendant has been in prison since December 2021 and has been receiving psychiatric treatment, it might be detrimental to her mental health to transfer her to a hospital or a psychiatric center.

19.  As for the interest of the public, Mr. Raffell emphasizes that neither of the two psychiatrists has suggested that Defendant now poses a threat to the safety of members of the public or other members of her family.

20.  As for the interest of Defendant, Mr. Raffell submits that for the last few years since her custody in prison, she has received continuous medical treatment during this time, showing steady improvement in her mental health.  The current arrangement (i.e. imprisonment) is beneficial to her and she has already got used to the prison setting and environment and that transitioning to a hospital and the adjustment period may be disruptive and detrimental.

21.  Specifically, Mr. Raffell points out that Defendant has been detained in custody since December 2021, and there is a long delay of more than 3 ½ years in the proceedings through no fault of her own as she has already indicated a willingness to plea guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility at the very early stage. 

22.  In conclusion, Mr. Raffell highlights the fact that Defendant committed the index offence solely under the influence of her mental condition at the material time.  She is remorseful and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.  She is now receiving medical treatment on a regular basis, and the chance of re-offending is very low. She understands and accepts the need to regularly take and continue to take her medication. 

THE LATEST PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS

23.  As said, I have got reports from two psychiatrists filed at the time when Defendant pleaded guilty before me.  Both psychiatrists gave the opinion that at the time of the killing, the Defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind or was experiencing psychotic symptoms which substantially impaired her ability to form a rational judgment and to exercise self-control.

24.  I adjourned the sentence and ordered two further psychiatric reports to give opinions on the question of hospital order, which reports I now have.  It is noted that despite the able submissions of Mr. Raffell made on Defendant’s behalf that her mental conditions have been improved and there is marked progress in her case, the two psychiatrists still have reservations in her case and recommend a hospital order for unspecified period.

25.  Dr. S.H. Lui’s report dated 8 August 2025 opines that Defendant’s insight into the mental illness is limited.  She was not regular with medication, and her social support is dubious.  On the ward, she is reported by staff to be bossy with other inmates and often demanding towards the officers. Hospital treatment is indicated for further observation, adjustment of medication and aftercare planning including supervised accommodation placement.  As there is no telling when she will be ready for release, Dr. Lui would recommend that Defendant be committed to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for an unspecified period, so that her progress will be reviewed and future discharge determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

26.  Dr. Yip’s report dated 8 August 2025 is a very detailed assessment of Defendant’s psychiatric conditions before and after the present remand.  Regarding Defendant’s insight, it is noteworthy that Defendant believed she only ever had auditory hallucinations on the day of offence, and none before, or after.  She did not think she was delusional.  She was unable to tell why she had been hospitalized repeatedly in the past and did not think she had any severe mental illness prior to the index offence.  She believed she has completely recovered from her mental illness.  She did not think she needed any further in-patient treatment, and that she could work and live with her son in the community.

27.  Dr. Yip opines that Defendant had poor control of her schizophrenia with repeated psychiatric admissions throughout the years. This was precipitated by her poor insight, irregular follow-ups and poor drug compliance, leading to frequent relapses.

28.  Furthermore, Defendant is opined to be of high violent risk. She told the consultation liaison psychiatrist in December 2021 that she had specifically bought the fork to kill her ex-boyfriend. The act of killing of the index offence is also extremely violent.

29.  Defendant’s persistent paranoid delusion against her ex-boyfriend is also concerning.  Despite treatment, her mental condition had only showed partial improvement.  She continues to believe her ex-boyfriend to be the culprit of the index offence.  She continues to believe her daughter had sex with her ex-boyfriend, and that her daughter had stolen from her. She believes the death of her daughter is her ex-boyfriend’s fault. Despite the long duration of engaging with the psychiatric service, Defendant still lacks understanding of her mental illness and has repeatedly defaulted treatment.  Up until now, Defendant still does not think she has had any severe mental illness in the past; she is still unable to tell clearly the symptoms she experienced at the time of the index offence.  Defendant’s lack of social support in the community is also a poor prognostic factor.

30.  In conclusion, in view of Defendant’s persistent psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and high violent risk, a period of in-patient psychiatric treatment would be necessary for the safety of herself and others. Apart from symptom control by pharmacological means, intensive rehabilitation involving psychological, vocational and social means also play an important part in patient recovery and risk management, so Dr. Yip also specifically recommends the Court to impose a Hospital Order for an unspecified period under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap.136).

THE SENTENCE

31.  This is a tragic case.  In light of the expert opinions of both Dr. Lui and Dr. Yip, it is clear that contrary to the earlier submission made by Mr. Raffell, Defendant’s mental conditions still need to be intensively supervised and monitored in a mental institution.  Mr. Raffell now acknowledges that this court has no real choice but to follow the expert’s advice regarding sentence and after explaining the reports to Defendant, he informs me that despite Defendant’s personal preference, the defence will not make further submission in opposition to the recommendations.

32.  Having considered all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of this offence, the character and antecedents of Defendant, the psychiatric evidence placed before me, and the other available methods of dealing with Defendant, I find that the most suitable method of disposing of this case is by imposing a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, for an unspecified period in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre as recommended by Dr. Lui and Dr. Yip, and I so order.